Isn't the integrity of our political system worth a voter identification requirement?

During my life, and not just during my career with the CIA, I have lived in a variety of different countries.  I was basically raised in Europe, and as soon as I graduated from college, I accepted a job in Africa.  Exposure to so many different cultures has been a tremendous blessing.  The languages that I picked up have proven useful time and time again.  As a Federal Agent working on the border, I became very familiar with Mexico and its history of political instability.  Once I joined the Agency, I had the opportunity to visit a number of third-world countries, including Iraq, Zimbabwe, Jordan, Nigeria, and Kenya.  I truly enjoyed experiencing life as it is lived in other countries, and I'm pleased to say that the great majority of people I encountered were happy, kind and generous.  I experienced true humility every time someone who had next to nothing invited me to share what little they had.

I often found myself feeling very frustrated that so many people, hundreds of millions, from different religious backgrounds and speaking different languages, all were caught in the same prison of political corruption.  A quick glance through a few history books indicates that almost every poor nation in the world at one time or another, has had an opportunity to experience an election based on the principles of representative democracy.  But electoral fraud in the third-world is almost as common as poverty.  I recall countless times when (with a bit of pride) I would think to myself, "thank goodness we don't have to worry about election fraud back home".  It's true that the political history of the United States includes LBJ getting elected to the Senate with a ballot box full of dead people, and John F. Kennedy benefitted from some questionable votes in his razor-thin victory over Richard Nixon in the 1960 presidential election.  But these examples are very much the exception.

The 2012 election between Republican Mitt Romney and the incumbent Democrat Barack Obama, made me realize that the United States is no longer immune to voter fraud.  I recall more than a handful of instances in which Democratic precinct representatives were accused of various examples of fraud.  A few people were actually prosecuted, even though the Justice Department makes no bones about its unwillingness to investigate voter irregularities.  The 2016 presidential election ushered in a number of streamlined methods of voting, designed to encourage participation.  Unfortunately, a disturbing number of voter fraud allegations have cast a shadow on these efforts.  Accusations of ballot-box stuffing, voter substitution, and the participation of dead folks only seem to involve Democrats.  Is it a surprise that investigative filmaker James O'Keefe was able to provide a video in which Democrat election workers discussed how to commit voter fraud, and even went so far and to provide examples of how new volunteers are taught methods of voter substitution and ballot box stuffing?

Because of the documented episodes of voter fraud in 2012, a number of states passed laws requiring all voters to present valid identification.  Immediately, the Democrats, cried foul, claiming that racist Republicans were attempting to intimidate minority voters.  I was stunned by this development.  Am I wrong to think that we should do whatever we can to protect the integrity of our electoral process?  You and I need identification to do just about anythimg today, from driving a car and cashing a check, to picking up a prescription for toe fungus.  What is so intimidating about showing identification before voting?  From my perspective, it's very simple.  Anyone opposed to the idea of requiring I.D. before voting, is intent on committing fraud.  I'm sad to say that so far, the courts have sided with the Democrats.  Texas was the most recent state that was obliged to scrap its voter I.D. law because of a ruling by a Federal Court.

The effort to keep the voting process free of personal verification is part and parcel to the Democrat's intent to move the United States closer to becoming a one-party state.  If Hillary Clinton is elected President on November 8, she promises to sign amnesty legislation that will almost immediately provide twenty million foreign nationals with U.S. citizenship.  The great majority of the twenty million are ethnic Hispanics from Mexico and Central America, so you can bet that once their citizenship is in place, they will be voting Democrat.  Since the last few presidential elections have been decided by seven million votes or less, you can understand the importance of blocking amnesty in its present form.  I don't fathom why it's necessary to adjust the twenty million illegal aliens directly to citizenship.  Wouldn't it make more sense to process these individuals for Permanent Resident status first, so they could pay taxes, register their kids for school, and not panic each time they encounter a Police Officer?  They would then have the option of completing the Nationalization process, just like other Permanent Residents.  The idea of fast-tracking these imdividuals, whose entire presence in our country is predicated on breaking our laws, should be repugnent.  At the least its terribly unfair to all the persons who have applied legally, and are sitting in Mexico City, Tegucigalpa, San Salvador, Lagos and New Delhi, patiently waiting for their name to be called.

The Democrats and Hillary Clinton go off the deep end when this change in the proposal is mentioned, and its easy to understand why.  For the Democratic Party, this entire issue is about adding a game-changing number of new voters to the list of registered Democrats.  Don't fall for the crocodile tears and speeches about families being separated.  Sure, there have been some isolated instances when family members "sin documentos" have been returned to Mexico, but it's only the politics of distraction, my friends.  This is about votes and political power; nothing more, nothing less.

The media is driving this election season right off a cliff.

The media in the United States has found it difficult to cultivate a reputation of non-bias. The political right accuses the media of actively promoting liberal candidates and causes, and the left either points out the conservative sympathies of the dominant Fox News Network, or scoffs at hearing the same complaint once again.  I was raised in Europe in a multi-cultural household (meaning French-American), and my brother and sister and I developed an international perspective to life at an early age.  I have always attempted to stay abreast of political developments in far-off places, and chose an occupation that would ensure a healthy dose of unique environments to live in and absorb.  In particular, I have enjoyed international politics.  That being said, I rarely commented about politics in other countries unless I had accrued some living time in said location.  I may devour the statistical results of Burkina Faso's last Congressional election, but I will keep my comments to myself.  Why?  Because the political events in most foreign countries do not directly impact me (I said most, not all), and frankly put, it's none of my business.  I have spend two decades of my life battling against the specter of "The Ugly Anerican", who continues to expect everyone in Paris to speak English and to have a McDonald's on every street corner of Tbilisi.  I refuse to add to the problem by telling people how they should run their own country.  In fact, except for providing basic information, I rarely notice U.S. media editorializing about foreign elections (the unavoidable exception being any French election which includes Marine Le Pen and the National Front political party).

That being said, we certainly are not given the same courtesy.  Yesterday, while vainly training to reach "Radio Classics-148" on my Sirius Satellite radio without getting distracted on the way (I failed), I caught a BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) commentary on the current U.S. political scene.  The announcer was forgettable, and his material shockingly predictable, but it still managed to infuriate me, which I'm sure would please Mr. BBC if he knew.  The first "fact" regarding the 2016 election that I managed to get from the commentary was that "ignorant, racist" (my quotation marks) people were voting in droves, hence the success that Donald Trump has enjoyed to date.  On the left, Bernie Sanders has also enjoyed a surprising level of popularity, but his voters were "young, thoughtful college students determined to have their say".  The BBC, picking up where NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and CBS left off, has no problem expressing its own opinion regarding U.S. politics.  I'm so ancient, I remember a time when the media at least made an effort to appear unbiased.  The commentary continued to insult, repeatedly referring to Donald Trump's political ideology as "racist and bigoted".  I don't recall Ted Cruz being mentioned much, but I belief Kasich was introduced as the only moderate in the Republican field, so therefore obviously having no chance whatsoever.  The commentator mentioned Hillary Clinton, barely disguising his sadness regarding her high negative ratings and continued problems with "server-gate".

I should have anticipated what the BBC had to offer beforehand and kept that dial moving until I reached "Dragnet" or "Johnny Dollar, Insurance Investigator".  Instead, I listened to the entire commentary and was reminded of just how stupid the British people must think we are, as they ponder how in the heck we managed to defeat them in two wars.  If I had been delivering a commentary instead of Mr. BBC, my perspective wouldn't have taken long to share.  Donald Trump, who I DO NOT support, is on the receiving end of a angry and frightened electorate's attempt to change the direction in which our country is headed.  Contrary to the smart folks at the BBC, I do not believe that the "bigot and racist" voting bloc has finally showed its strenth in 2016.  The simple truth is that changes are taking place in the United States that are subtlety impacting the way our children are raised and the way in which we represent ourselves internationally.  The current administration has been determined to steadily increase the number of Americans who are dependent upon Washington DC for a paycheck, for programs regarding elementary education, and to make moral decisions without really taking into account the perspective of the majority of Americans.  The Obama Administration has purposely politicized the government to the point that career civil service employees either jump on board the entitlement express, or retire.  The Justice Department and the FBI have been told what and who to investigate, just as the IRS, with a brand-new politically appointed Director, starts harassing Conservative political organizations and lining up their supporters for audits.  President Obama has decided that he is just too intelligent to be burdened with the Constitution, so instead of working with Congress, Executive Action is used to handle controversial issues.  As for our international standing, the free world has been effectively without a leader since 2008.  Actually, the Obama Administration did decide to impact one particular foreign environment: Iraq.  Because we unexpectedly removed our troops (and military instructors) in 2010, ISIS took full advantage, crossed back into Iraq from Syria, forced military engagement with the Iraqi Army outside Tikrit, and when the scared, untrained 17-year old Iraqi soldiers dropped their weapons and ran back towards Baghdad, ISIS was on the receiving end of a military weapons and supplies haul like has never before been seen.


These are just some of the reasons that the American people are voting for Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.  Both men are considered to be outside the GOP establishment, which has avoided standing up to this Administration at almost every opportunity (there is no shame in being called a "racist", Senate Majority Leader McConnell and Speaker of the House Ryan, if the accusation is FALSE).  The American Conservative voter is demanding change, and will not relax until steps are taken to address the obscene national debt.  Jeb Bush never got off the schneid because conservatives want change.  The Democrats are flirting with "Chairman Mao" Bernie Sanders but will eventually rally behind Hillary.  Seems to me they are only interested in turning back the clock, some of them to the days of Marx and Engels.

I began this long post with a complaint regarding the media, and I will try and end on that note.  We can't control what decisions are made by the press and media, and they would ignore our advice regardless.  They are the ultimate elite and understand economics, foreign policy, and the human heart so much better than the Unwashed Masses.  What I dream of is a media that presents the news, full stop.  Who decided that we needed editorials anyways?  When did some network corporate genius come along and decide that we were too stupid to understand the events taking place in our world, so they needed to EXPLAIN it too us.  In 2008, the European media fell in love with Barack Obama, and instructed Europeans (including political leaders) to love him as well.  Nothing else can explain the blind loyalty with which the EU has supported a president who took office with no military experience, unable to understand any language but English, and having never really had a job.  So BBC, following in line behind most U.S. media, has discovered that the voters who have chosen Donald Trump and Ted Cruz to fight it out for the nomination, are crusty, angry, ignorant racist bigots.  Let's see how far this gets them as the election heats up.

PS (WANTED: A non-political news service that gives me the news, and has enough faith in me to assume that I can figure out the details on my own.)

What to expect from the European political scene for 2016.

I was planning on writing about the U.S. primary and caucus battles that are presently unfolding, but after watching a few minutes of the circus that seems to be unfolding tonight in Nevada (and the Trump Show is certainly a circus), I thought it might be more interesting to take a look at the political scene on the other side of the pond.  I am fascinated by the thought of exactly what kind of Europe will be waiting for Barack Obama's successor.  Not surprisingly, the biggest story for the Europeans is the current health and future prognosis of the European Union.  At a time when optimists were expecting a discussion on the admission of new members, instead questions are being raised regarding the long term financial viability of the Union, and the influx of what seems to be an endless stream of refugees from Syria.  Before the refugee crisis exploded in the front page of all the European newspapers, people in Innsbruck and Rotterdam and Gdansk and Palermo and Munich were stressed out about the financial problems laid bare by another Greek bailout (if one never pays back a loan, but continues to borrow, shouldn't you drop the "loan" pretense and just call it "a gift?).  Pathetic Greece can't get a break.  Right after the embarrassment of another bailout dies down, Greece is forced to ask for even more money to deal with the refugee problem.  With the Obama Administration about ready to close up shop, ISIS still killing folks in Syria, and refugees using whatever means at their disposal to get to a "favored" new home in Europe (Germany and France are favored locations, Poland and Hungary are not), are the political dynamics in Europe shifting?

I'm not sure exactly when it happened, but sometime within the last decade, German President Angela Merkel became the de facto leader of the EU.  Whatever policy Merkel suggested, France, England, Italy and the rest were likely to follow.  Interestingly enough, Merkel usually took her lead from the United States (see Ukraine and Syria), which meant that Barack Obama had a lot more power at his disposal than he realized.  As for the Europeans themselves, the year started with most eyes focused on France and the apparent growth of Marine Le Pen's a National Front (NF).  Given the recent problems that France has had with Islamic Extremists, there was real concern that the NF would begin to emerge as a powerful political force, if not a majority party.  Actually, there was never really any cause for concern; France's bizarre electoral procedures can result in the party with the most overall votes, receiving no parliamentary representation.  France remains ripe for a right-wing coup of sorts, regardless of the antiquated political system.  One more terror arrack in Paris and I would expect Marine Le Pen to be carried to the Elysee Palace.

The specter of ISIS has also increased the strength of rightist parties in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.  Austria seems to always have a right-of-center government, and they make no bones sbout their determination to prevent criminal aliens from entering Austria.  Poland and Hungary both have governments that lean heavily to the right.  I'm never sure what to make of Itslian politics, but fortunately we have enough information to note that Europe has taken a hard jump to the right, which no doubt was greatly influenced by both the terror attacks in France and the growing refugee crisis.  Vladimir Putin's sabre rattling also has the effect of increasing support for nationalist political movements.  Whatever president takes office in 2017 will be dealing with a much more conservative, nationalistic, suspicious Europe, and for good reason.  Does this imply that it would be better for a Republican to win the election?  I don't necessarily think so.  A couple of the candidates who are doing really well are not familiar to many voters.  As for Donald Trump, I have no idea what craziness a Trump Presidency would bring to the White House.  At the end of the day, it would appear that the Europesn political scene is s lot more predictable than ours.

The world needs a leader to stand up to ISIS; can Putin fill the role?

Link: Putin using media and military to make headlines in Syria.

Over the last two years, the world has become a much more dangerous place.  Russia seems intent on presiding over the dismemberment of Ukraine, Libya has become a magnet for jihadist groups, Iran, arguably the world's foremost exporter of terrorism, has been given open access to purchase modern military equipment, and ISIS seems unstoppable as it racks up battlefield victories in Iraq and Syria.  What the international situation calls for is the arrival on the scene of a true leader.  Barack Obama does not have the courage or the conviction to be that leader, and the various European Heads of State  are permanently frozen in "surrender" mode.  Whose left?  What about Vladimir Putin?  Sure, I'm disturbed by Russian aggression in Ukraine, but the situation in Donbas and Crimea does not present a current threat to world peace.  Let's take a serious look at the danger posed by the continued existence of the Islamic State for Iraq and al-Sham, or the Islamic State for a Caliphate in the Levant, or ISIS/ISIL, or whatever name suits you.  Simply put, this Islamic Extremist Organization is about Death.

ISIS claims to be singularly focused on the creation of a new Islamic Caliphate.  The most recent Caliph was embodied in the form of the last Sultan of the Ottoman Empire.  What is a Caliph?  A Caliph is the spiritual leader of the Islamic World, and the Caliphate is intended to be whatever geographical area that accepts his total authority.  At times, ISIS has claimed to be only interested in Syria, but that interest was expanded to include Iraq, upon the ill-timed withdrawal of U.S. troops.  Now we here the area of interest has expanded to include "The Levant" which is a colonial term used to describe Syria, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, and Jordan.  The reality is, ISIS is a plague with world domination goals.  The organization has spread to Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, Europe and the United States.  Quite a reach for a group only interested in The Levant.  As for its Modus Operandi, ISIS flourishes through the spread of tyranny, domination and mass murder.  The tools most frequently utilized are terror and fear.  Its ability to spread to so many disparate communities, including the Philippines and Kenya, allows ISIS to spread its message like a virus.  How are they able to convince so many young people to join?  ISIS provides the one thing missing in the lives of young people from the poorest corners of the earth: hope.  For the individual, ISIS provides sustenance, and in many instances, a little money to send home.  And at the end of the day, anyone who dies in pursuit of the Caliphate, will most certainly qualify as a martyr.  For the hundreds of thousands of unemployed, hungry young men in places like Cairo, Nairobi, Damascus, Sana'a, the Balkans, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, and Libya, ISIS puts a gun in their hands and gives them not only something to do, but something powerful to belong to.

Again, anyone one of a dozen nations, if properly motivated and mobilized, could defeat ISIS on the present battlefields of Iraq and Syria.  Even with their F5s and stolen Iraqi Migs, I believe the Iranians could vanquish ISIS.  In fact, a coalition of Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E. and Kuwait could probably get the job done as well.  Ideally, the United Nations would sponsor the creation of an international military coalition to destroy ISIS.  There was a day when the President of United States would ideally fit into the role of political leader of this coalition, given the amount of diplomatic relationships and influence the United States enjoys.  But it doesn't appear that our current President is up for the job.  Just when it appeared that no one was willing to take the job, Vladimir Putin announces that Russia has decided to aggressively re-engage in Syria, in opposition to ISIS.  Vlad puts his money where his mouth is; Russian heavy tanks, artillery, and necessary troop-support equipment has started to arrive in Latakia, on Syria's northwestern coast.  If the Russians so chose, a dedicated offensive campaign against ISIS, that utilizes whatever resources are necessary (and with the "no troops on the ground" assistance from the U.S. and Europe), would eventually crush ISIS.  But the elephant-sized question in the room, is can we allow Putin to become that leader of an international coalition to defeat the worst of the bad guys, when in the first paragraph, we identified Putin as one of the (lesser) bad guys?

In every post on this blog that focuses on Ukraine, I have made my pro-Ukrainian stance obvious.  I'm not Ukrainian, nor do I have any close Ukrainian friends.  I support Ukraine simply because they are a nation attempting to become more free and democratic, that has been invaded by its more powerful neighbor.  I will continue to support Ukraine, but I'm willing to avert my gaze for a period of time, if it will encourage Putin to dive head-first into the battle to defeat ISIS.  I recognize this evil organization for what it is, and what it has the potential to accomplish.  The time to smash ISIS is now, when it is still basically in its infant state.  Can you imagine the kind of conflicts that are raging in Iraq and Syria, also happening in South Africa, Argentina, and Thailand?  Unfortunately, its not as far-fetched as it was a year ago.  Someone with international influence has to stand up and build a coalition to destroy ISIS, and it needs to happen now.  Since no one else wants it, as far as I'm concerned, Putin has my total support to assume the job. 

Link: ISIS stakes its claim to Libya.

Libya provides the most glaring example of the complete non-existence of proactive thinking on the part of the Obama Administration.  As Qaddafi was close to recapturing Benghazi, David Cameron and allies, including Barack Obama, elected to use Tomahawk missiles to prevent the city from falling back under regime control.  What was so wrong with regime control, anyway?  Hadn't Qaddafi displayed an increasing willingness to open up his country and his economic system to change?  Wasn't Libya a reasonably wealthy Arab country, where Libyans could still enjoy some modicum of quality of life?  Well, we intervened, Qaddafi was intercepted moving from one location to another and executed, and we did.....nothing.  Libya didn't descend into hell overnight.  The people celebrated for a week or so, and various temporary governments were set up, usually compromised of academics and human rights activists.  As of August, 2015, Libya has become a battlefield between so many different militias and jihadist factions that its not worth your while trying to separate them all.  Towns change occupiers by the day, as two rival governments sit in separate former capital cities, each claiming administrative and diplomatic authority over what was once called the Islamic Republic of Libya.  Why has the West been so reticent to get involved, especially after basically being the harbinger of Qaddafi's end?  Obviously the United States maintained some modest presence in Benghazi, otherwise, how would a random gang of Islamic Extremists find a U.S. Ambassador and four Department of Defense employees to torture and murder?  The real tragedy, is that the Administration was aware of the unstable nature of the situation in Benghazi, yet no exfil plan existed in emergency circumstances.  To former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not having an exfil plan is a small issue; it only cost the life of five Americans.  What should be a glaring gap in U.S. foreign policy is the complete lack of a coherent strategy to support democratic growth in Libya.  We are supposed to support the good guys, remember?  The ones who support freedom of religion, speech, and the establishment of a fair and all-inclusive Constitution?  I see nothing happening in Libya that is not instigated by militias and jihadists.  I don't see the French or the British anywhere, and I certainly don't see the United States.  Barack Obama was in Africa last week, but he skipped over Libya and landed in Kenya.  I hope he was able to visit some of the relatives he has living in the slums of Kibera.

Last week, a militia loyal to Al-Qaeda actually retook the town of Derna from ISIS, and according to the New Yorker (see link), executed the ISIS commander.  What a choice for a dinner guest....ISIS or Al-Qaeda.  Even with the temporary setback at Derna, ISIS has shown real strength in Libya, occupying Qaddafi's home town of Sirte and threatening Misrata.  More importantly to western petroleum interests, ISIS is also making inroads in Libya's "Oil Crescent"; maybe ISIS will start exporting oil from Libya first, as opposed to Baiji in Iraq, what has been the popular concern.  As the well-written and detail-heavy link explains, Libya has not been a functioning state since the death of Qaddafi, and today, any number of militias and extremist groups are having at each other, increasing the suffering of the average Libyan beyond belief.  Do we have a plan to provide aid to the needy people of Libya?  Absolutely not, because the country is thick with heavily armed teenagers with itchy trigger fingers.  Nothing useful can be accomplished without force.  In the past, the West has shown much more flexibility in these situations, deploying coalition forces to bring aid to the needy.  But we have returned to the thought process that saving Libyan lives is not worth putting at risk any American or European soldiers.  But the movers and shakers in DC, Paris, London and Den Hague may have to reconsider their position, as the complete breakdown in authority has allowed Libya to become the easiest transit route for African immigrants to reach Europe.  Even though ISIS kills any African Christian it gets its hands on, they will continue to come, in even greater numbers.  By this time next year, Italy will be facing a humanitarian crisis.  We recognize this, but is anyone doing anything?

Egypt and Tunisia are well-aware of the reach of ISIS, and both North African countries have take concrete steps to militarize their borders with Libya.  The Egyptians and Tunisians will be successful to a degree in keeping their beaches and tourist hotels safe, but they will also be enclosing all the African refugees and innocent Libyans.  May God protect the Christians, homosexuals, open-minded students, pregnant and single women, and human rights activists of Libya, who will be soon become the hunted.  How much responsibility does the West deserve for this development?  Not much, except for those Tomahawk missiles, which for all practical purposes, removed one stable government in favor of a new political matrix, which has yet to fully show itself. 

A bit of politics: The Republican field begins to take shape...Dr. Ben Carson.

Soon Americans will be bombarded with advertisements, billboards, television commercials and radio messages, explaining why one particular Republican candidate is the best choice to run against Hillary Clinton for president in 2016.  The majority of registered voters are Democrats, but the difference doesn't appear to be an issue for the GOP.  In fact, when Ronald Reagan was burying Walter Mondale in an electoral landslide in 1984, the majority of registered voters were Democrat. This fact speaks volumes for the idea that in some instances, you really don't know who someone is going to vote for after the curtain closes.  Along with many others, I thought Mitt Romney would beat Barack Obama in 2012; the polls showed Romney ahead in both Ohio and Florida on the day before the election.  Obviously, some persons who were projected Romney voters, closed those curtains and voted for Obama (not me, I promise).  The point being, that it is very difficult to handicap the U.S. Presidential Elections.  The primaries, on the other hand, don't present nearly as much of a problem.  Take for instance the Democrats in 2016; we have known that Hillary Clinton was going to be the Democratic nominee for years (provided she didn't unexpectedly expire or run off to join the circus).  True, the party pretends that a few other possibilities exist, including Martin O'Malley, the former governor of Maryland, and Elizabeth Warren, Senator from Massachusetts who can occasionally be mistaken for Pocahontas.  But the nomination has been Hillary's since Obama took the oath of office in 2012.  In my mind, Hillary is a very flawed candidate.  If I were a Democrat, I would be very worried.  Hillary is dealing with controversies about emails and a private server, the Benghazi tragedy, the alleged "Quid Quo Pro" for companies and persons who contributed to the Clinton Foundation, and a less-than-impressive turn as Secretary of State.  But, to my surprise, HRC continues to lead all the GOP candidates in every poll I have seen.  This fact leaves me both disgusted as sad.  After looking at the Bushes and Clintons for decades, I would think that everyone would be as ready as I am for a new face, even if it requires taking a chance on an unknown.

The Republican polling machines already have created a two-tier separation between the candidates.  In the top five or six, we have Governor of Wisconsin Scott Walker, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Texas Senator Ted Cruz, with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee not far behind.  The next group is usually led by Dr. Ben Carson, famed Neurosurgeon and my personal choice, and former Hewlett-Packard/Compaq CEO Carly Fiorina.  The rest of the list includes the "unknowns"; those who have yet to decide, including New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Louisiana Governor and another favorite of mine (sorry Jennifer!) Bobby Jindal, former New York Governor George Pataki and recently retired Texas Governor Rick Perry. A big question mark seems to follow former Pennsylvania Senator and 2012 candidate Rick Santorum.  I really like Santorum.  I have tremendous respect for Santorum; he shows no fear when the time comes to stand up for this issues that are important.  When he is given an equal playing field and access to the electorate, Santorum does very well.  He speaks well and with conviction, and he is a very intelligent man.  Unfortunately, the media and the Democrats (and some of his former Republican opponents), have pinned the ultimate Scarlet Letter to Rick's lapel.  You see, Santorum is TOO conservative to be president.  He doesn't budge on any of the issues; he's against Gay marriage, pro-Life, supports the Second Amendment, opposes amnesty, and is strongly in favor of entitlement and tax reform.  To someone like me, Santorum is not TOO anything.  He is just the right amount.  He talks about the issues that just might be the keys to turning our country around.  No, my issue is not that Rick is too conservative.  Its that he is running for an office that he knows in his heart he can't win.  If Santorum were to get the GOP nomination, he would unite and mobilize the left in a way we haven't seen since Barry Goldwater.  We need a candidate that will appeal to the level-headed Democratic voters who  sense the need to abandon the current socialist agenda.  I am bothered that Santorum would take a chance on putting another Democrat back in the White House, which is what will happen if he wins the election.  It makes me consider that possibly he has fallen victim to the Bush/Clinton fog, which convinces every member of those two families that the United States CAN'T FUNCTION without them.

You probably are able to discern the reasons why I'm supporting Dr. Carson.  Many of you may criticize me by pointing out that Carson has about as much chance of beating HRC as Santorum does.  I don't accept that argument.  Once Carson gets familiar with the podium and the pace of campaigning, he will be a natural.  it may seem a bit strained at the moment because he is a neophyte.  I find his "newness" refreshing.  As for qualifications, Carson has written a number of wonderful books, he has spent a good part of his life caring for other people, and he has dedicated himself to public service OUTSIDE of his occupation.  You would be hard-pressed to find a more well-spoken, polite, learned man, and importantly, he is humble.  I had some questions regarding his grasp of the wide spectrum of issues that face the president (heck, ignorance of those issues certainly did not affect Obama's decision to run), but lately he has made a concerted effort to address foreign policy, economics, and the social troubles that seem to be about ready to catch this nation on fire.  Does it matter to me that he is African-American?  Yes, it does.  Only in the fact that it might provide him with more access into those communities that are bleeding and suffering the most.  I have heard Dr. Carson discuss the inner city neighborhoods of Baltimore, his home.  Dr. Carson did not grow up in wealth and opportunity.  He is a true American success story, as is Herman Cane.  But he never fails to discuss the plight of the poor, inner city youth, who wake up every morning to another day of no options, no opportunities, just suffering.  It will be a priority for Dr. Carson, who will, I believe, create a cabinet-level position to focus exclusively on the people who haven't been able to escape to the suburbs.  It is an issue worth serious attention and funding.